On Mon, Feb 08 2016, Wookey wrote: > +++ Helmut Grohne [2016-02-08 20:10 +0100]: >> Hi Wookey, >> So I still think that my patch is simpler for package maintainers using >> flex, precisely because they do not have to think. In fact, nothing >> changes for them. It just magically starts working for cross compiling >> as well. > True. It's up to Manoj really. I think this thread has clearly covered > the issues. (apart from someone needing to work out how many thing > _actually_ need libfl-dev). > Yours does produce 3 binary packages instead of 2. But that's quite a > small overhead in exchange for no more work than 'upload new flex' I have now upload flex-2.6.0-5 to experimental, and asked on #debian-qa for the credentials to run a partial archive rebuild. Once #the rebuild is done, we’ll have a better idea of the scope of the problem, and whether it is better to just have people install libfl-dev whenever they need flex, or not. I am not wedded to my approach yet, I just wanted some more numbers. Apart from Helmut, and I, which have opinions on the two approaches, does anyone else care to weigh in? Manoj -- Kent's Heuristic: Look for it first where you'd most like to find it. Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/> 4096R/C5779A1C E37E 5EC5 2A01 DA25 AD20 05B6 CF48 9438 C577 9A1C
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature